The Great Tracking Nerf v0.1

[Snake]

Not being able to refit in combat nerfs small groups that use caps a lot more than the huge blobs tbh. Maybe a mod like a warp scram is in order to prevent this, maybe a script for HIC's?

[Sponk]

Keep reading the thread - Greyscale feels strongly that ships should not be refitting during combat.

he is open to alternatives to a blanket ban, though.

[Zeekar]

Keep reading the thread - Greyscale feels strongly that ships should not be refitting during combat.

he is open to alternatives to a blanket ban, though.

From what i read in that thread from CCP Greyscale i have to say im not sure if i want to play eve on the medium term basis and this is the first time in 5 years im coming to this. Dumbing down the game further and removing options from a sandbox, what the fuck is he thinking?

[The Djego]

So take a look. Do you agree with the principle of the nerf? Do you like/not like the implementation? Does it work for XL guns but unfairly penalise BCs vs Frigs? Would you like to see added functionality like being able to apply 1 or more Target Painters against a target to see the chance in DPS/Change-to-hit?

If the problem is X, change X don't change Y to affect X and also affect A-Z as well. This would basically hand out another massive nerf to BS sized weapons(what is completely uncalled for), it doesn't do this much against BCs since they use medium weapons and they archive frig bashing by missiles, neuts or drones far more than gun dps(at least at ranges where it would matter).

Don't get me wrong the tracking formula scales badly both in range and if you add a bigger amount of heavy modifiers(webs and target painters), that make it pretty much meaningless for bigger fights. However you would need to change the hole ewar/recon design to have a reasonable change here.

I actually have the feeling I will be the only one that seen the irony in the linked blog, starting off with sig bonuses for gallente(they had big sigs for a reason) and trying to reinforce the mindset that never worked for the concept of gallente at all.

Someone suggests a tracking formula that increases the gun sig as range increases. Not sure of the effect on damage limitation there.

It basically works against the massive increase of effective tracking by range, what by itself would be logical if you look at effective tracking\DPS at range(similar to what the higher speed and falloff system tried back in the days). It simply means that the range where you effectively sig/speed tank increases a lot, since range stops to be a plain multiplier to your effective tracking(before diminishing returns by dps lose of falloff).

However this should be done for every weapon separately, if not you would have lasers in a similar position blasters are since 3.5 years, what is pretty undesirable in my opinion. In a big fight with EW support it will not create a big difference, it simply screws solo/small gang pvp a bit more.

[RoemySchneider]

- Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC)

that i'd live to see the day, after 7+ years of posting just that *sniff*
*squee*

[yes, this is worthy of a pony infraction]

too bad even FHC 'only' has a year headstart on this topic -.-

[Mike deVoid]

I'd be interested to see your formula change suggestions and related sig rad changes, sig bloom changes and sig res changes.

[Alain Colcer]

Tracking formula change needs to be split into 2 and worked similarly to missiles

1- step to calculate if you hit and how well you did it (wrecking shot vs glanced)
2- depending on the size of your ammo, how much damage were you able to do (ie: 1200mm projectile hitting a frig)

That will mean that even if you webbed a frig, painters would still be useful to hit well on it.

[RoemySchneider]

I'd be interested to see your formula change suggestions and related sig rad changes, sig bloom changes and sig res changes.

yeah... no... sry but im not going to search for all 100+ post across two-and-two-dead forums for outside-the-box ideas/suggestions that got shot down by mathematically impaired forum warriors and/or change-averse "bigger=better" aficionados.

besides... i'm quite positive you've been to the same threads i have.
and if i post a new fred, half the ideas will look copied as some have actually embraced a few insights/come to the same conclusions all on their own over the years, ccp included - hence my aforementioned joy -.-

but if this is indeed not a troll; i'll have some time over the weekend for graphs/pics/examples

[Mike deVoid]

If you don't have them to hand, no bother. Just interested in variations on a theme. As you say, ideas pick up adjustments and get better in response to community feedback.

@Alain. Well that's the big decision really. Do you keep the turret formula to a chance-to-hit calculation only (allows 'lucky' hits to do large alpha damage) or do a damage reduction calculation ala missile explosions.

Personally I like the different flavour between missiles and turrets. Especially since missiles never miss within range.

I think the basis of the decision probably comes down to whether you think that the tactics used to limit damage should apply equally well to missiles and turrets or whether the actions taken/fitting choices used should be different. Given than tracking disruptors with affects missiles soon, I guess this indicates which way the wind is blowing.

[Tyrus Tenebros]

But is it?

Neutron Blaster Cannon II
Signature Resolution 400m

Antimatter Charge L
Volume 0.025m3

Assuming the charge is cyclindrical, volume = pi() * radius^2 * height. For the charge to have a radius of 400m it would need to have a height of 0.00000004973592 m, or 49.73 nm.
(even if you assume 400m = diameter and so a 200m radius, you still get 198 nm).

I literally didn't read the thread because I'm on my phone but you realize that signature resolution is the ability of the gun to resolve targets on its fire control unit and has literally nothing to do with the size of the charge right??

Makes your calculation of charge radius p. Silly

[Mike deVoid]

Yeah. That is my point...